Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

jQuery v4.0 Beta

blog.jquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 404 posts

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#301

Post by marcosdumay »

p-e-w wrote: post #67
tipiirai wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second to that: jQuery is awesome. Or more specifically: the idea that websites can be built with vanilla HTML, CSS, and _optional_ JS. jQuery embraces progressive enhancement and separation of concerns pattern, which is quite the opposite of how websites are built these days. Web development starts with 10+ React import statements for components, CSS, images, and whatnot. JavaScript is a must, not optional.

One website that almost always gets mentioned when people talk about jQuery today is "You might not need jQuery" ( https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ ). That site is the best ad for jQuery I've ever seen. For almost every task it describes, the jQuery code is shorter, cleaner, and more intuitive than the vanilla "modern" JS one. And that's after almost 20 years, and I don't know how many billions of dollars invested…

That site message is "don't import all of jquery just to use the $ global and one or two specific functions".

It's a very fine message and the site contents spread it quite well. But if you actually want to use jquery instead of just some function you got from a reference, by all means, use it, it's a very nice library.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#302

Post by collyw »

Macha wrote: post #294
krapp wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's changed is the billion dollar tech industry invested in convincing people that JQuery is a dead and obsolete technology. For some reason, JQuery is the exception to the general rule of seeing a mature, battle-tested library as a sign of quality.

The problem jQuery was solving was to provide a usable abstraction over an inconsistent platform for core functionality like event handling and DOM manipulation. The point of the last decade and a half of standards work was to eliminate that problem, and it has at least moved it from "core web functionality" to more complicated areas like bluetooth, 3d rendering and audio, which jQuery's goals do not include handling…

It was initially sold as a way to fix browser incompatibilities, but I still use it because there are really nice plugins like select2. I really don't see the point in SPA apps for the most part. Fair enough if you have a heavily interactive frontend, but I can build an app in Django with a bit of JQuery and end up with around half the code compared to adding in React.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#303

Post by marcosdumay »

rjbwork wrote: post #47
bufferoverflow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jQuery is not awesome. It was awesome 15 years ago. Now it's completely outdated. It's very hard to reason about DOM that can be manually changed by any random piece of code. That's why declarative solutions like React/Vue/Svelte are so much better.

>It's very hard to reason about DOM I don't mean to be overly snarky here, but as someone who's just totally out of their depth in modern web UI - is that why people like these frameworks? Because they're very easy to reason about? I've generally found them to be mountains and mountains of boilerplate and spaghetti, but I really do not have a wide base of experience to pull from on this topic.

I guess the "easy to reason about" thing people keep saying is meant to tell you that the modern frameworks allow modularization.

Personally, I do find their style of modularization abhorrent. As you said, it's full of boilerplate, it's also full of dependencies, and the worst sin in a software architecture: they don't enable you to specify a simple interface between modules. But they do solve the lack of structure you get when all the code talks to each other freely through the DOM.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#304

Post by collyw »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #151
tambourine_man wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>…WordPress is still more than 1/3 of the web… Why still? WordPress, like jQuery, is awesome. It's an incredibly powerful and easy open source CMS. I hope it takes more of the Web. And if you're gonna defend the decentralization of the Web (and I do), it's hard to find a better argument than “just buy a domain and install WordPress”.

It's a buggy insecure mess. No one should be advocating for wordpress.

It depends on who you listen to. Non coders seem to love Wordpress. I worked in a place with a Django booking site and a Wordpress marketing site. The other two devs knew PHP, while I know python, they advised me not to learn it and to stay away.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#305

Post by Macha »

cxr wrote: post #247
tipiirai wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely yes. jQuery selector engine was developed before the official Selector API, which ended up being almost exactly the same. Except for a few exceptions which John wasn't too sure about when they asked for feedback: https://johnresig.com/blog/thoughts-on-queryselectorall/

I don't know what you think that link shows (I don't know what John thought it showed, either—it's a classic "talking to one's own head, instead of who you're trying to communicate with" situation, and David Baron's confusion on the mailing list at the time is understandable). To reiterate: > The argument for querySelector / querySelectorAll calls is literally mimicked from John Resig's grounbreaking API design No, i…

Using CSS to select elements within the browser arguably only became popular because of jQuery, (and Prototype, Mojo, etc.). The browser inbuilt suggestion at the time was to programmatically navigate the DOM, or maybe use XPath. Proposing CSS selectors as a browser API before it became dominant in the wild via alternatives would have got a "why do we need another option?" response.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#306

Post by timeon »

dylan604 wrote: post #82
duskwuff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find $.ajax() much more simple than promise, await, async of native JS. $.ajax() returns a promise. If you're calling .done() / .error() on it to handle the results -- well, that's exactly how you work with promises.

you think it's the same, but it's not even close to me .ajax({ success:function(result), error:function(xhr), } vs fetch().then((e)=>function()) is even close to being the same, then we're just not even talking the same language

I'm genuinely curious. How does this difference affects you?

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#307

Post by marcosdumay »

dylan604 wrote: post #115
umvi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Async await fetch lets you flatten your nested callback functions into simple procedural programming. It makes everything much easier to reason about, no more closures and such.

see, this is where i'm not cool with this newness. i've spent years getting away from procedural, and switching to functions, classes/methods. now, we want to get away from that and go back to procedural? that's all fine and dandy, but you're trying to have a new trick conversation with an old dog that just doesn't care. you're bringing some sort of logic to a conversation where it's not needed. it works for me. i do…

> now, we want to get away from that and go back to procedural?

AFAIK, we are all still programming browser UI with Javascript. It is an imperative language, about as stateful as you can get.

Now, if you managed to do your frontends with Haskell or Prolog, I'd be interested on learning how.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#309

Post by Aeolun »

pzmarzly wrote: post #241
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, not simpler, nextjs is simpler then php to start working with. Also running & deploying nowadays is easier. PHP used to be easiest, but fell behind.

This very much depends on what you are building and how experienced you are. If you just want a few pages, no need for background workers or database migrations, PHP is still the king. You download one of many single-executable LAMP servers, and start writing your index.php. Deploy? Just copy files to server. Zero downtime deploy? Copy files to server and use symlink to atomically switch versions. Dependencies? Compo…

PHP is great for getting started, but I think it gives you a fundamentally flawed idea of how the web works. You tend to think in files, and not worry about what Apache or Nginx are actually doing.

Then when you switch to node, or basically any other language, you wonder where your file based logic is, and everything feels annoying and painful.

Do you really need to host your own server to run a single file? Yes, you do with PHP too, but it’s hidden in Apache and php-fpm.

Post reply on HN